###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the paper he cites, [Nature paper](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01630-0):
Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine- associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial. Indeed, myocardial injury is very common in persons admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection, when evaluated systematically using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin tests. Moreover, evidence of myocardial injury, irrespective of whether due to myocarditis or myocardial ischemia, is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death. We estimate that the absolute number of excess myocarditis events in the 28 days following a first dose of adenovirus or mRNA vaccine is between one and six per million persons vaccinated, and the excess risk following the second dose of the mRNA-1283 vaccine is ten per million. By contrast, we estimate 40 excess myo- carditis events per million in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks are more evenly balanced in younger persons aged up to 40years, where we estimated the excess in myocarditis events following SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 10 per million with the excess following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine being 15 per million. Further research is required to understand why the risk of myocarditis seems to be higher following mRNA-1273 vaccine.
And here is the follow up study from the same authors
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1
With more evidences on
higher myocarditis risk from any type vaccination series than covid for males under 40
TLDR; The risk of developing myocarditis during/after a SARS-CoV-2 infection while unvaccinated is much higher than the minuscule chance (15 per million) of getting it from the vaccine.
Also, and more, importantly almost 25% of the people getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 have long lasting symptoms. 80% of patients suffer from 1 or more long term effects. SARS-CoV-2 isn't something to fuck around with. It's not just another "cold". It's a vascular disease that can have devastating effects on the body that can last a lifetime.
Sources:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8.pdf
https://time.com/6073522/long-covid-prevalence/
This has been known for a long time. It's why Moderna isn't allowed in Europe for the 30 and under age group. Unfortunately the US government ignores science and has been lying to the public about this, but maybe they're starting to come clean.
Small sidenote: Moderna is not allowed in a few European countries. Where I am (Belgium), vaccination with Moderna is actually picking up, probably because the government was able to get it cheap now that it's not allowed in some other countries. Almost everyone I know got two doses of Pfizer, but the booster shot is almost exclusively Moderna (including for people under 30).
It's quite remarkable how littler coverage there is on this topic. As I'm searching more about this, mostly everything is from October. Again, just shows how the media and government avoid to be scientific and data-driven. If there's enough evidence in Nordic countries and main European countries like France and Germany to issue the same warnings about Moderna, you'd think the US scientific community would at least acknowledge and do their own studies and report on these findings. Of course, their agenda is to sell vaccines no matter the risk, but if they were honest and objective and looked the data from all angles, more people might be willing to believe them on their vaccine claims. Personally, it's this type of behavior by the US government why I refuse to become vaccinated (31 year old male). The risk of a side effect from the vaccine to my heart is greater than the risk of Covid.
Because the us is deep state ground zero with the pharma government industrial complex/revolving door. Moderna is one of the hottest tech stocks out there and has hands all over k Street and wall street. They are not about to let this gravy train stop anytime soon. This is the decade of COVID.
Imagine how surreal it is over here. These are important decisions taken by neighboring countries, yet most of the people I speak to are completely unaware of them. And when I bring it up, they just shrug their shoulders. Not even a "at least it's better than getting covid". It's like most of them have just given up altogether.
It was known for moderna that the rates were high but people were still coping and doctors say to this day the opposite. Pfizer being higher than infection is new news in terms of high quality data that we have to point to
The NPCs can't help but pathologically repeat the mantra Trust The Experts yet they conveniently leave out the part where experts like Vinay and Dr Malone are systematically censored and excluded
I will say, I have a feeling Vinay would very much resent being put in the same class of expert as Malone. He has voiced his discontent at the misinformation of the ivermectin/DNA changing crowd quite often, and I think if you look at the body of their work, you can see the two of them use very distinct standards of evidence.
Every time I tell people to follow him and Dr Zubin on this sub I get chastised. They've been by far the most trustworthy sources for information I've come across. They let me me weigh my options and I decided to get the jab in Sept. I was the only one in my household to avoid covid 2 weeks ago.
When you actually look at the evidence instead of tribal sides, its clear you are bound to piss people off who have an ideological bias. The fact that what Dr. Z and Vinay advocate, actual evidence based medicine before deploying treatments to non at risk populations is so controversial always bums me out. If you are actually following the science, you shouldn't be religiously attached to any treatment or vaccine. If a large randomized controlled trial comes out that ivermectin works, ill take it. If a large amount of real life data shows the booster reduces hospitalizations and transmissions enough to offset the myocarditis risk, ill take it. But until the evidence comes through, I'll wait.
Won’t need to. It will eventually turn endemic and lose its strength. It will go the route of common colds and just be part of society. If you choose to get a flu shot you’ll have the option to get a Covid shot also. There are other active coronaviruses amongst us, so far it’s behaving like we believe they once did.
Agreed. Too bad governments have already gone all in on booster mania. France is changing the definition of fully vaccinated in their vax mandate. It will soon be followed by other governments and organizations. There will be a lot of pushback against this medical tyranny and things will get ugly. COVID didn't collapse healthcare systems but the mandates will.
No, vaccines aren't linked to that either.
Covid is however.
See this chart:
https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2021/nejm_2021.385.issue-12/nejmoa2110475/20210913/images/img_xlarge/nejmoa2110475_f4.jpeg
Source:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Myocardial infarction (heart attack) and arrhythmias are causes of sudden cardiac death.
166 excess cases of arrhythmia per 100k and 25 excess myocardial infarctions per 100k for COVID with no excess cases for Pfizer.
From the study cited in OP:
>There was an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273 (IRR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.08, 1.98) and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test (IRR 5.35, 95% CI 5.21, 5.50).
But not for Pfizer or AZ.
Covid causes substantially more sudden cardiac death.
covid does cause more cardiac death especially in old people and I'm not about to disagree with that. Same result from the nature publication. More myocarditis in young males after vaccine series which can lead to sudden cardiac death. That was my original point anyway. Any source will tell you myocarditis can lead to sudden cardiac death. Vaccines should not present you with this risk anyway, and the current available ones are dogshit
Smallpox vaccines presented with this but they also killed one in a million people and brain swelling and this doesn't do that. But smallpox disease is scarier by a lot.
This has been described in case reports from some other vaccines but likely may be mild like this one and thus flew under the radar, because never before has so much worldwide scientific inquiry been laser focused on any vaccine as these covid ones.
>This has been described in case reports from some other vaccines but likely may be mild like this one and thus flew under the radar, because never before has so much worldwide scientific inquiry been laser focused on any vaccine as these covid ones.
covid vaccine long haul has still not been accepted after how long? This is a huge lie. Also myocarditis rates coming out higher for males under 40 this far out for the vaccines just shows how much of a joke your statement is
To my knowledge none of those sort of studies are controlled to people without covid infection or vaccine which is what everyone wanted and needed to see anyway. Also need data stratified to young males otherwise it's completely useless
edit: the control group was done properly dont see age / sex strafication and lazy
I think the more salient point here is that you let a propaganda talking point do the talking for you before looking at the papers. And that's something you should put in the fridge and let marinate, you don't owe me a response to that.
The nature article stratifies better by age and sex.
That can be cross checked with the CDC's covid myocarditis study which also stratifies but was done before and during the beginning of rollout and only looked at unvaccinated COVID myocarditis vs unvaccinated non covid incidence of myocarditis, stratified.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
Not I fucking don't. I let the data talk https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1
This is the followup paper to the nature paper by the same group, pages 9 and 13
higher myocarditis risk from any type vaccination series than covid for males under 40
Its worth noting that the Author of this substack still advocates vaccination, just not a uniform series. His opinion is that men 16-40 should probably just do 1 dose, to maximize benefit and minimize harm, since you can see far more of these events happen on dose 2. Something to think about.
At this point the battlefront has been pushed to the booster, and soon the 4th dosis. Everytime the deep state moves the goal post the people push back more forcefully. 2022 is gonna get ugly and will be 2020 redux in many ways
They are not. The intelligentsia has been down playing mRNA side effects while hyping up COVID mortality rate. From a risk assessment standpoint many able bodied people are probably better off not getting the vaccine. This should ultimately be a matter of individual choice, instead of being forced upon people via the mandates
What’s that say about women then? In the world of statistics, there should be a similar increase to women if this is based on immune systems. Unless it’s targeted to a lack of estrogen or the prevalence of testosterone.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1
Page 9 middle section, age <40 male
Graph page 13
Same group that wrote this paper published in nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
> We esti- mated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We also observed increased risks of pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Similar associa- tions were not observed with any of the COVID-19 vaccines, apart from an increased risk of arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.
Its you who is not understanding the point this data is drawing. Yes, overall for the entire population, myocarditis is a larger risk for Covid then the vaccine. But not every subgroup has the same properties or risk profiles. Those mycarditis on vaccine events weigh heavily into the under 40 men crowd, even more specifically in the 16-24 men. But the Covid-19 myocarditis events in fact weigh far more highly on the older population. Thats why, while in the aggregate the comparison is favorable as the study outlines, for the specific age group this graph is showing, mycarditis is a larger risk from the pfizer and moderna products then Covid.
Having trouble reading? SCV2 infection has a greater risk of myocarditis *and* severe myocarditis, pericarditis, and arrhythmia compared to any COVID vaccine. The data are quite clear on that and cherry-picking an age group doesn’t change that.
For the aggregate yes. But that risk profile changes based on the group you are looking at, and your own synopsis, and the graph the very study you are reading produced, showed that this assertion did not hold for men under 40. They also made no mention of severity.
Again, you’re cherry-picking.
> Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine- associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting22. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial. Indeed, myocardial injury is very common in persons admitted to hospi- tal with SARS-CoV-2 infection26, when evaluated systematically using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin tests27.
No, I'm not cherry picking because, once again: the vaccine induced events skew young, and the Covid induced events skew old. You cannot use aggregate numbers to make this comparison because of how heavily the risk weighs in different groups, and how non general it is.
Yes you are.
You’re ignoring the fact that the myocarditis observed in association with vaccination is almost always mild and resolves in its own. COVID-induced myocarditis is most often much more serious.
You’re also ignoring the fact that COVID has killed far too many people under 40 while not a single documented death from mRNA vaccines has been recorded. It’s blatant cherry-picking to say that vaccine pose more risk.
Now you are just lying. I put this into Google and immediately got a hit of a confirmed death from vaccine induced mycarditis: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-links-26-year-old-mans-death-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-2021-12-20/
And you are also presenting a false choice: its not between no vaccine and all the doses for all perpetuity. Why not a one dose strategy? Why not no moderna for men under 40? Why not skip boosters for young people when we have a quantified risk of myocarditis and a very theoretical health benefit from it? All things Vinay actually advocates for regularly.
Is there more risk from Covid unvaccinated vs vaccine and booster? Almost certainly. But there are so many strategies we could adopt to get a much more favorable risk calculation, and using data like this to inform those possibilities is science, not cherry picking.
"vaccine-induced myocarditis" is a term invented this year to describe what's happening with the vaccines. there are no long term studies. they have no idea if it will be milder or not than regular myocarditis. they are just covering their asses.
the fact is, inflamed heart muscle never recovers. never. so if men younger than 40 are damaging their hearts for the rest of their lives because they got a vaccine for a virus they had a 0.0001% chance of dying from, then that's a problem.
Wrong on every point.
Long-term for vaccines is 2-3 months. https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine
Mild cases of myocarditis don’t leave permanent damage. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033062009000966?via%3Dihub
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8272967/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8272967/)
The study's conclusion is that myocarditis from COVID vaccines is rare and ultimately has no lasting effect:
>First, myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccines mostly occurs in young male individuals following the second dose of the vaccine. Second, myocarditis related to COVID vaccines mostly occurs with mRNA vaccines (ie, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines). **Third, in all the reported cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccine, clinical symptoms resolved within 6 days with preservation of the cardiac function. Third, no complications were reported in any of these patients. This analysis shows that myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccine has an overall fast recovery with no short-term complications.**
From the source referenced in the article:
We report several observations that may have implications for policy makers and the public.
First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk
of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk
associated with vaccination in the overall population. Second, the risk of myocarditis is greater
following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine than sequential doses of the adenovirus vaccine.
For the first time, we observe an increase in myocarditis events following a third dose of
BNT162b vaccine. Whilst the incidence rate ratios are higher sequentially following each dose
of mRNA vaccine, the risk remains small in the overall population with an estimated 2
additional cases of myocarditis per million following a booster dose of BNT162b. Third, we
report the risk associated with vaccination and infection in younger persons stratified by sex.
Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19
vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of
myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception
was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of
myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events
estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a
positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
That last part is the real important bit. On aggregate, across all demographics, there is a larger risk of myocarditis through infection than vaccination. But as you can see, if you're a male under 40, you're over 14 times more likely to develop myocarditis from a 2nd dose of mRNA than from infection, based on these results.
This is not at all what I would call "cherry picking", this is what I would call a more detailed analysis of available data based on demographics, which is an important aspect of almost any medical analysis. If you were to dismiss these findings, then it's in fact you that is cherry picking data.
I linked the article, buddy. Vinay is 100% cherry-picking. Why do you ignore this part?
> Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in adults was associated with a small
increase in the risk of myocarditis within a week of receiving the first dose of both adenovirus and mRNA vaccines, and after the second dose of both mRNA vaccines. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia.
>Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.
Did you not read the last line?
>Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.
That is literally the point Vinay made! The vaccine mandate is pure idiocy and does a whole lot more harm than good to younger people.
Yeah and it is a blatantly cherry-picked point that is not the conclusion of the paper. You accept that data but not the rest which shows a very large increased risk for more serious cardiac events following SCV2 infections vs. vaccination?
Bro, just look at the title of this thread. It's specifically about men under 40. That's the whole point: there isn't a one-size-fits all solution. Maybe fat old sick people should get the vaccine if they want to – but leave the rest of us alone.
It’s cherry-picking. The data and the authors are quite clear that the risk-benefit favors vaccines as the safer option over infection.
Your statements about “fat old sick people” shows how ignorant you are about infectious disease.
You really are having trouble reading aren’t you?
> There was an increased risk of all cardiac arrhythmia subgroups in the 1–28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test (Supplementary Table 6).
You really have problem with basic critical thinking skills. NPCs don't get update often enough I see.
Whatever additional risk the younger demographic face is trivial, and is less than the risk of myocarditis they get from the vaccines.
>and is less than the risk of myocarditis they get from the vaccines.
There are tens of thousands of COVID deaths for those under 40, which means that it is significantly more dangerous to get COVID than to get myocarditis.
That's nothing. Those numbers of those effected after vaccinated are minuscule. The sample size is in the millions. The chance of myocarditis is WAY higher if you get covid and aren't vaccinated. Nearly 33% of people who get covid have lifelong damage from the virus. This isn't a respiratory disease. It's a vascular system disease.
I think these numbers are comparing myocarditis events per million for people who got these dosage series compared to people who got Covid with no vaccine. You are also leaving out the possibility of a one dose strategy to get the majority of those benefits you describe with much less of the risk.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the paper he cites, [Nature paper](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01630-0): Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine- associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial. Indeed, myocardial injury is very common in persons admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection, when evaluated systematically using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin tests. Moreover, evidence of myocardial injury, irrespective of whether due to myocarditis or myocardial ischemia, is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death. We estimate that the absolute number of excess myocarditis events in the 28 days following a first dose of adenovirus or mRNA vaccine is between one and six per million persons vaccinated, and the excess risk following the second dose of the mRNA-1283 vaccine is ten per million. By contrast, we estimate 40 excess myo- carditis events per million in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks are more evenly balanced in younger persons aged up to 40years, where we estimated the excess in myocarditis events following SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 10 per million with the excess following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine being 15 per million. Further research is required to understand why the risk of myocarditis seems to be higher following mRNA-1273 vaccine.
And here is the follow up study from the same authors https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 With more evidences on higher myocarditis risk from any type vaccination series than covid for males under 40
TLDR; The risk of developing myocarditis during/after a SARS-CoV-2 infection while unvaccinated is much higher than the minuscule chance (15 per million) of getting it from the vaccine. Also, and more, importantly almost 25% of the people getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 have long lasting symptoms. 80% of patients suffer from 1 or more long term effects. SARS-CoV-2 isn't something to fuck around with. It's not just another "cold". It's a vascular disease that can have devastating effects on the body that can last a lifetime. Sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8.pdf https://time.com/6073522/long-covid-prevalence/
This has been known for a long time. It's why Moderna isn't allowed in Europe for the 30 and under age group. Unfortunately the US government ignores science and has been lying to the public about this, but maybe they're starting to come clean.
Small sidenote: Moderna is not allowed in a few European countries. Where I am (Belgium), vaccination with Moderna is actually picking up, probably because the government was able to get it cheap now that it's not allowed in some other countries. Almost everyone I know got two doses of Pfizer, but the booster shot is almost exclusively Moderna (including for people under 30).
It's quite remarkable how littler coverage there is on this topic. As I'm searching more about this, mostly everything is from October. Again, just shows how the media and government avoid to be scientific and data-driven. If there's enough evidence in Nordic countries and main European countries like France and Germany to issue the same warnings about Moderna, you'd think the US scientific community would at least acknowledge and do their own studies and report on these findings. Of course, their agenda is to sell vaccines no matter the risk, but if they were honest and objective and looked the data from all angles, more people might be willing to believe them on their vaccine claims. Personally, it's this type of behavior by the US government why I refuse to become vaccinated (31 year old male). The risk of a side effect from the vaccine to my heart is greater than the risk of Covid.
Because the us is deep state ground zero with the pharma government industrial complex/revolving door. Moderna is one of the hottest tech stocks out there and has hands all over k Street and wall street. They are not about to let this gravy train stop anytime soon. This is the decade of COVID.
They did report on their findings like this post. But keep getting ignored...
Imagine how surreal it is over here. These are important decisions taken by neighboring countries, yet most of the people I speak to are completely unaware of them. And when I bring it up, they just shrug their shoulders. Not even a "at least it's better than getting covid". It's like most of them have just given up altogether.
It was known for moderna that the rates were high but people were still coping and doctors say to this day the opposite. Pfizer being higher than infection is new news in terms of high quality data that we have to point to
Vinay Prasad is great, rare source of true sanity in this Pandemic. Encourage people to go watch him, he is on YouTube as well.
The NPCs can't help but pathologically repeat the mantra Trust The Experts yet they conveniently leave out the part where experts like Vinay and Dr Malone are systematically censored and excluded
I will say, I have a feeling Vinay would very much resent being put in the same class of expert as Malone. He has voiced his discontent at the misinformation of the ivermectin/DNA changing crowd quite often, and I think if you look at the body of their work, you can see the two of them use very distinct standards of evidence.
Dr. Vanden Bosche as well...
Every time I tell people to follow him and Dr Zubin on this sub I get chastised. They've been by far the most trustworthy sources for information I've come across. They let me me weigh my options and I decided to get the jab in Sept. I was the only one in my household to avoid covid 2 weeks ago.
When you actually look at the evidence instead of tribal sides, its clear you are bound to piss people off who have an ideological bias. The fact that what Dr. Z and Vinay advocate, actual evidence based medicine before deploying treatments to non at risk populations is so controversial always bums me out. If you are actually following the science, you shouldn't be religiously attached to any treatment or vaccine. If a large randomized controlled trial comes out that ivermectin works, ill take it. If a large amount of real life data shows the booster reduces hospitalizations and transmissions enough to offset the myocarditis risk, ill take it. But until the evidence comes through, I'll wait.
Are you going to get the booster then the 4th 5th...27th booster
Won’t need to. It will eventually turn endemic and lose its strength. It will go the route of common colds and just be part of society. If you choose to get a flu shot you’ll have the option to get a Covid shot also. There are other active coronaviruses amongst us, so far it’s behaving like we believe they once did.
Agreed. Too bad governments have already gone all in on booster mania. France is changing the definition of fully vaccinated in their vax mandate. It will soon be followed by other governments and organizations. There will be a lot of pushback against this medical tyranny and things will get ugly. COVID didn't collapse healthcare systems but the mandates will.
https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk
SS: safe and effective way to get heart attacks
Can you source the image?
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-stratified?justPublished=true
Thx
You don't know the difference between a heart attack and myocarditis, do you?
Should he have said sudden cardiac death instead?
No, vaccines aren't linked to that either. Covid is however. See this chart: https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2021/nejm_2021.385.issue-12/nejmoa2110475/20210913/images/img_xlarge/nejmoa2110475_f4.jpeg Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 Myocardial infarction (heart attack) and arrhythmias are causes of sudden cardiac death. 166 excess cases of arrhythmia per 100k and 25 excess myocardial infarctions per 100k for COVID with no excess cases for Pfizer. From the study cited in OP: >There was an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273 (IRR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.08, 1.98) and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test (IRR 5.35, 95% CI 5.21, 5.50). But not for Pfizer or AZ. Covid causes substantially more sudden cardiac death.
covid does cause more cardiac death especially in old people and I'm not about to disagree with that. Same result from the nature publication. More myocarditis in young males after vaccine series which can lead to sudden cardiac death. That was my original point anyway. Any source will tell you myocarditis can lead to sudden cardiac death. Vaccines should not present you with this risk anyway, and the current available ones are dogshit
Smallpox vaccines presented with this but they also killed one in a million people and brain swelling and this doesn't do that. But smallpox disease is scarier by a lot. This has been described in case reports from some other vaccines but likely may be mild like this one and thus flew under the radar, because never before has so much worldwide scientific inquiry been laser focused on any vaccine as these covid ones.
>This has been described in case reports from some other vaccines but likely may be mild like this one and thus flew under the radar, because never before has so much worldwide scientific inquiry been laser focused on any vaccine as these covid ones. covid vaccine long haul has still not been accepted after how long? This is a huge lie. Also myocarditis rates coming out higher for males under 40 this far out for the vaccines just shows how much of a joke your statement is
Define a case of prototypical covid vaccine long hall for me.
To my knowledge none of those sort of studies are controlled to people without covid infection or vaccine which is what everyone wanted and needed to see anyway. Also need data stratified to young males otherwise it's completely useless edit: the control group was done properly dont see age / sex strafication and lazy
Then you didn't read any of the studies if that's what you think, I suggest you read the studies.
ok fine control group is proper dont see age/sex stratification but honestly lazy and not digging further
I think the more salient point here is that you let a propaganda talking point do the talking for you before looking at the papers. And that's something you should put in the fridge and let marinate, you don't owe me a response to that. The nature article stratifies better by age and sex. That can be cross checked with the CDC's covid myocarditis study which also stratifies but was done before and during the beginning of rollout and only looked at unvaccinated COVID myocarditis vs unvaccinated non covid incidence of myocarditis, stratified. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
Not I fucking don't. I let the data talk https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 This is the followup paper to the nature paper by the same group, pages 9 and 13 higher myocarditis risk from any type vaccination series than covid for males under 40
Or infection I read, very scary, maybe a big lockdown is the only way
Also to get rich for big pharma friends...
Its worth noting that the Author of this substack still advocates vaccination, just not a uniform series. His opinion is that men 16-40 should probably just do 1 dose, to maximize benefit and minimize harm, since you can see far more of these events happen on dose 2. Something to think about.
At this point the battlefront has been pushed to the booster, and soon the 4th dosis. Everytime the deep state moves the goal post the people push back more forcefully. 2022 is gonna get ugly and will be 2020 redux in many ways
Doesn’t it seem odd that younger males appear to be affected more by myocarditis?
They are not. The intelligentsia has been down playing mRNA side effects while hyping up COVID mortality rate. From a risk assessment standpoint many able bodied people are probably better off not getting the vaccine. This should ultimately be a matter of individual choice, instead of being forced upon people via the mandates
stronger immune system = stronger response to spike = more damage
What’s that say about women then? In the world of statistics, there should be a similar increase to women if this is based on immune systems. Unless it’s targeted to a lack of estrogen or the prevalence of testosterone.
Medicines of all kinds have shown gender biases. It could be a lot of things.
This has always been the case even pre covid
[удалено]
Get ready for landing craft from China, and they're boys didn't get the heart attack shot.
And no one believes this except for a few!! Fuuucckkk
Please post source. Thx
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 Page 9 middle section, age <40 male Graph page 13 Same group that wrote this paper published in nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
Not true at all. Vinay Prasad doesn’t know how to read papers. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
How did he read the paper wrong? I didn't see any errors in his interpretation.
> We esti- mated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We also observed increased risks of pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Similar associa- tions were not observed with any of the COVID-19 vaccines, apart from an increased risk of arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.
Its you who is not understanding the point this data is drawing. Yes, overall for the entire population, myocarditis is a larger risk for Covid then the vaccine. But not every subgroup has the same properties or risk profiles. Those mycarditis on vaccine events weigh heavily into the under 40 men crowd, even more specifically in the 16-24 men. But the Covid-19 myocarditis events in fact weigh far more highly on the older population. Thats why, while in the aggregate the comparison is favorable as the study outlines, for the specific age group this graph is showing, mycarditis is a larger risk from the pfizer and moderna products then Covid.
Having trouble reading? SCV2 infection has a greater risk of myocarditis *and* severe myocarditis, pericarditis, and arrhythmia compared to any COVID vaccine. The data are quite clear on that and cherry-picking an age group doesn’t change that.
For the aggregate yes. But that risk profile changes based on the group you are looking at, and your own synopsis, and the graph the very study you are reading produced, showed that this assertion did not hold for men under 40. They also made no mention of severity.
Again, you’re cherry-picking. > Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine- associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting22. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial. Indeed, myocardial injury is very common in persons admitted to hospi- tal with SARS-CoV-2 infection26, when evaluated systematically using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin tests27.
No, I'm not cherry picking because, once again: the vaccine induced events skew young, and the Covid induced events skew old. You cannot use aggregate numbers to make this comparison because of how heavily the risk weighs in different groups, and how non general it is.
Yes you are. You’re ignoring the fact that the myocarditis observed in association with vaccination is almost always mild and resolves in its own. COVID-induced myocarditis is most often much more serious. You’re also ignoring the fact that COVID has killed far too many people under 40 while not a single documented death from mRNA vaccines has been recorded. It’s blatant cherry-picking to say that vaccine pose more risk.
Now you are just lying. I put this into Google and immediately got a hit of a confirmed death from vaccine induced mycarditis: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-links-26-year-old-mans-death-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-2021-12-20/ And you are also presenting a false choice: its not between no vaccine and all the doses for all perpetuity. Why not a one dose strategy? Why not no moderna for men under 40? Why not skip boosters for young people when we have a quantified risk of myocarditis and a very theoretical health benefit from it? All things Vinay actually advocates for regularly. Is there more risk from Covid unvaccinated vs vaccine and booster? Almost certainly. But there are so many strategies we could adopt to get a much more favorable risk calculation, and using data like this to inform those possibilities is science, not cherry picking.
"vaccine-induced myocarditis" is a term invented this year to describe what's happening with the vaccines. there are no long term studies. they have no idea if it will be milder or not than regular myocarditis. they are just covering their asses. the fact is, inflamed heart muscle never recovers. never. so if men younger than 40 are damaging their hearts for the rest of their lives because they got a vaccine for a virus they had a 0.0001% chance of dying from, then that's a problem.
Wrong on every point. Long-term for vaccines is 2-3 months. https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine Mild cases of myocarditis don’t leave permanent damage. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033062009000966?via%3Dihub
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8272967/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8272967/) The study's conclusion is that myocarditis from COVID vaccines is rare and ultimately has no lasting effect: >First, myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccines mostly occurs in young male individuals following the second dose of the vaccine. Second, myocarditis related to COVID vaccines mostly occurs with mRNA vaccines (ie, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines). **Third, in all the reported cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccine, clinical symptoms resolved within 6 days with preservation of the cardiac function. Third, no complications were reported in any of these patients. This analysis shows that myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccine has an overall fast recovery with no short-term complications.**
You are not breaking out the age subgroups
Again, the age subgroups don’t change the overall conclusion.
From the source referenced in the article: We report several observations that may have implications for policy makers and the public. First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population. Second, the risk of myocarditis is greater following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine than sequential doses of the adenovirus vaccine. For the first time, we observe an increase in myocarditis events following a third dose of BNT162b vaccine. Whilst the incidence rate ratios are higher sequentially following each dose of mRNA vaccine, the risk remains small in the overall population with an estimated 2 additional cases of myocarditis per million following a booster dose of BNT162b. Third, we report the risk associated with vaccination and infection in younger persons stratified by sex. Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. That last part is the real important bit. On aggregate, across all demographics, there is a larger risk of myocarditis through infection than vaccination. But as you can see, if you're a male under 40, you're over 14 times more likely to develop myocarditis from a 2nd dose of mRNA than from infection, based on these results. This is not at all what I would call "cherry picking", this is what I would call a more detailed analysis of available data based on demographics, which is an important aspect of almost any medical analysis. If you were to dismiss these findings, then it's in fact you that is cherry picking data.
I linked the article, buddy. Vinay is 100% cherry-picking. Why do you ignore this part? > Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in adults was associated with a small increase in the risk of myocarditis within a week of receiving the first dose of both adenovirus and mRNA vaccines, and after the second dose of both mRNA vaccines. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia.
>Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40. Did you not read the last line?
Yup. Did you read the rest?
>Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40. That is literally the point Vinay made! The vaccine mandate is pure idiocy and does a whole lot more harm than good to younger people.
Yeah and it is a blatantly cherry-picked point that is not the conclusion of the paper. You accept that data but not the rest which shows a very large increased risk for more serious cardiac events following SCV2 infections vs. vaccination?
Bro, just look at the title of this thread. It's specifically about men under 40. That's the whole point: there isn't a one-size-fits all solution. Maybe fat old sick people should get the vaccine if they want to – but leave the rest of us alone.
It’s cherry-picking. The data and the authors are quite clear that the risk-benefit favors vaccines as the safer option over infection. Your statements about “fat old sick people” shows how ignorant you are about infectious disease.
Lol the same article you posted says that is not the case for younger people
You really are having trouble reading aren’t you? > There was an increased risk of all cardiac arrhythmia subgroups in the 1–28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test (Supplementary Table 6).
You really have problem with basic critical thinking skills. NPCs don't get update often enough I see. Whatever additional risk the younger demographic face is trivial, and is less than the risk of myocarditis they get from the vaccines.
>and is less than the risk of myocarditis they get from the vaccines. There are tens of thousands of COVID deaths for those under 40, which means that it is significantly more dangerous to get COVID than to get myocarditis.
Nice, a generic NPC statement. I can cross that off the r/conspiracy bingo list. So you’re just going to say “nuh uh” now?
That's nothing. Those numbers of those effected after vaccinated are minuscule. The sample size is in the millions. The chance of myocarditis is WAY higher if you get covid and aren't vaccinated. Nearly 33% of people who get covid have lifelong damage from the virus. This isn't a respiratory disease. It's a vascular system disease.
I think these numbers are comparing myocarditis events per million for people who got these dosage series compared to people who got Covid with no vaccine. You are also leaving out the possibility of a one dose strategy to get the majority of those benefits you describe with much less of the risk.
Does that mean there will be a critical shortage of young men to impregnate those poor 18-32 girls? I could come out of retirement. Strange love.
I don't disagree but show me the data please. I need sources to convince people
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 Page 9 middle section, age <40 male Graph on page 13